Durham's Investigations Fizzles

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

It's only crazy town if, like you, you ignore the facts...or you want to continue to base your worldview on the crap that emanated from the Clinton campaign about this. If you do, that's your problem not mine.

Or, maybe you have a lead on the whereabouts of the "pee-pee video"?

Failing to Prove His Theory of the Case in Court, John Durham Writes 400-Page Editorial Claiming He Was Still Right All Along.

And our boy Whell believes him. LOL.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Man, you guys insist on having your own facts. Its EXACTLY what the Mueller report said specific to Russian collusion, which was what the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was about, and Crossfire Hurricane is what the Durham report was about.

Don't want to take my word for it? Here:
Mueller Report Finds No Evidence Of Russian Collusion

As we've been discussing this hour, the special counsel did not find that President Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government - that according to a summary of the conclusions delivered by the - Attorney General William Barr to the Congress.

Mueller finds no proof of Trump collusion with Russia; AG Barr says evidence 'not sufficient' to prosecute

"(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

The crap about Mueller "not exonerating": that's media spin. The media has reported that Trump was not exonerated in his behavior by the Mueller report, and that Mueller and company simply found insufficient criminal evidence to prosecute.

The fact is that prosecutors - special, federal, or otherwise - have no ability in our legal system to exonerate the accused. In fact, the term "exonerated" is actually misused here. You can't be exonerated until you've been convicted.

But, since you brought it up, here's what Mueller did say:

“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

You are quoting the Bill Barr mischaracterization of the Mueller Report, something that Mueller himself rejected as misleading? Jeez. Not only did Bill Barr lie in his characterization of the Mueller Report, he followed up with the ridiculous Durham investigation for which he (and Durham) had already made up their minds that something nefarious occurred and tried in vain for 4 years and $6.5 million to prove it. They failed miserably except to provide a rational for wingnuts like you to paint Trump as a victim and not the criminal that he is.

You sure do invest a lot of emotional energy trying to convince yourself (and others) that Trump isn't a lawless traitor to America and its ideals. It's a fool's errand.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You are quoting the Bill Barr mischaracterization of the Mueller Report, something that Mueller himself rejected as misleading? Jeez.

Oh, you didn't like NPR and NBC as sources? Apparently, you didn't learn your lesson the last time I posted this link the Volume one of the Mueller Report: https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco...73816/download

Quoted from the Mueller Report: "...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Originally Posted by finnbow

You sure do invest a lot of emotional energy trying to convince yourself (and others) that Trump isn't a lawless traitor to America and its ideals. It's a fool's errand.

You do spend a lot of effort spinning my comments. Why is it that when I refer to the Mueller Report, which we are led to believe is not a compromised political product, you then point to the Senate Intel Investigation, which is a product of politicians and not law enforcement personnel?

Why, when I'm talking about Crossfire Hurricane, and Mueller's and Durham's review of those efforts, do you change the subject to the hearings from the Intel committee as you have in the post above?

Maybe it's because the product of politicians comports with your chosen narrative, but the product of career Justice Dept and law enforcement professionals does not?

In any case, I find your constant efforts to deflect and divert fascinating.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

Why is it that when I refer to the Mueller Report, which we are led to believe is not a compromised political product, you then point to the Senate Intel Investigation, which is a product of politicians and not law enforcement personnel?

Anyhow - the gnashing of teeth over the failure to achieve a coronation:

This failure has unleased powerful forces which have hampered the US strategic vision, despite the efforts of many including Henry Kissinger and Lloyd Austin.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Anyhow - the gnashing of teeth over the failure to achieve a coronation:

This failure has unleased powerful forces which have hampered the US strategic vision, despite the efforts of many including Henry Kissinger and Lloyd Austin.

I'm trying my damnedest to flush the excrement that is Henry Kissinger out of my memory banks. Kissinger knew that Nixon had committed treason in the weeks immediately preceding the 1968 election, and yet he agreed to become Nixon's Secretary of State anyway. Which in my book makes him a party to Nixon's treason. And he tolerated or outright supported war crimes committed by allied nation states during his time as Nixon's Secretary of State. Kissinger is a war criminal.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Oh, you didn't like NPR and NBC as sources? Apparently, you didn't learn your lesson the last time I posted this link the Volume one of the Mueller Report: https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco...73816/download

Quoted from the Mueller Report: "...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

"Did not establish" is not the same as "did not find any evidence", and the Barr Senate committee did.

PS: Someone should edit your posts for content since it's mostly verbal diarrhea and seems to be intentional to interject false information.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

"Did not establish" is not the same as "did not find any evidence", and the Barr Senate committee did.

PS: Someone should edit your posts for content since it's mostly verbal diarrhea and seems to be intentional to interject false information.

Mueller's investigation couldn't establish it because there wasn't sufficient evidence to do so. Does that make you feel better? We still end up in the same place: Mueller didn't or couldn't prove that the allegations that were rampant on the mainstream press amounted to collusion, or coordination, or conspiracy, or whatever folks were calling it back then.

Further, the IG and Durham found that the FBI and Intel were relying disproportionately on what they knew was a product of the Clinton campaign to further their "investigation.

"False information"? Quite the opposite is what I'm providing sir.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Mueller's investigation couldn't establish it because there wasn't sufficient evidence to do so. Does that make you feel better? We still end up in the same place: Mueller didn't or couldn't prove that the allegations that were rampant on the mainstream press amounted to collusion, or coordination, or conspiracy, or whatever folks were calling it back then.

Further, the IG and Durham found that the FBI and Intel were relying disproportionately on what they knew was a product of the Clinton campaign to further their "investigation.

"False information"? Quite the opposite is what I'm providing sir.

Sir, you make no sense with that statement.

Verbatim: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared.

The special counsel’s remarks stood as a pointed rebuttal to Trump’s repeated claims that he was cleared and that the two-year inquiry was merely a “witch hunt.” They also marked a counter to criticism, including by Attorney General William Barr, that Mueller should have reached a determination on whether the president illegally tried to obstruct the probe by taking actions such as firing his FBI director.

Mueller made clear that his team never considered indicting Trump because the Justice Department prohibits the prosecution of a sitting president.

“Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider,” Mueller said during a televised statement . He said he believed such an action would be unconstitutional.

So no foul was called, not because there was no foul. In basketball its known as a no call.

You keep posting volumes on the IG, Durham, surprised you don't being up Sen Richard Burr, but I will for the nth time.

WASHINGTON — A sprawling report released Tuesday by a Republican-controlled Senate panel that spent three years investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election laid out an extensive web of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Kremlin officials and other Russians, including at least one intelligence officer and others tied to the country’s spy services.

The report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, drew to a close one of the highest-profile congressional investigations in recent memory and could be the last word from an official government inquiry about the expansive Russian campaign to sabotage the 2016 election.

Now that does make me feel better since I got the last word on this.
Dismissed. (BG)

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Mueller's investigation couldn't establish it because there wasn't sufficient evidence to do so. Does that make you feel better?

Somehow you take the fact that Mueller didn't indict Trump (due to Trump's successful obstruction efforts and DOJ's policy of not indicting a president) as a clear indicator of his innocence even though Mueller did detail the obstruction efforts and indict and convict five Trump campaign operatives (George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen) and 26 Russians who helped the Trump campaign .

You sure have a strange idea of what constitutes appropriate behavior by a president and inappropriate behavior by DOJ. It is not as though Trump hasn't clearly demonstrated his absolute contempt for the rule of law and fealty to Putin since then.

Meanwhile,

The Georgia prosecutor leading an investigation into former President Donald J. Trump and his allies has taken the unusual step of announcing remote work days for most of her staff during the first three weeks of August, asking judges in a downtown Atlanta courthouse not to schedule trials for part of that time as she prepares to bring charges in the inquiry. The moves suggest that Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, is expecting a grand jury to unseal indictments during that time period.

It'll be fun watching you portray the revelations of these forthcoming indictments as evidence of a "perfect phone call," just as you've willingly parroted the "no collusion, no obstruction" mantra, notwithstanding the demonstrated coordination between Trump staff and Russia and obstruction of justice by Trump.

[RickeyM]

I love how tRump' supporters on the Reich, er right use the "C" word (collusion) every chance they get. Mueller's investigation found evidence that Trump's campaign did coordinate with the Russians so maybe they're just trying to wallpaper over that. They also don't answer the question of if Donny was so squeaky clean why did he interfere in the investigation so much.